St. Petersburg & G. Ry. Co. v. Van Smith

• Decision Date: 25 January 1916
• Citation: 70 So. 940,71 Fla. 64
• Parties: ST. PETERSBURG & G. RY. CO. v. VAN SMITH.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

70 So. 940

71 Fla. 64

ST. PETERSBURG & G. RY. CO. v. VAN SMITH.

Florida Supreme Court

January 25, 1916

Rehearing Denied March 2, 1916.

Error to Circuit Court, Pinellas County; F. M. Robbs, Judge.

Action by S. Van Smith against the St. Petersburg & Gulf Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed, and new trial awarded.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where punitive damages are not authorized by the case made, it is error to charge the jury upon the theory that punitive damages may be involved in the finding.

COUNSEL Lunsford & De Vane, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.

MacFarlane & Chancey, of Tampa, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The defendant in error obtained a judgment for $1,000 against the railway company for personal injuries and for injury to a mule and wagon received in a collision on the defendant's street railway track, and the defendant took writ of error. A number of errors are assigned and argued, but it is necessary to discuss only one. There is no evidence which would warrant the infliction of punitive damages, yet the court charged the jury that:

If they find the 'collision resulted from the gross carelessness and negligence on the part of the defendant's servants and employés in propelling and operating the said street car you should find for the plaintiff in such sum as you may find from the evidence would be sufficient to compensate him for the damages occasioned to him by reason of such collision and, in addition thereto, such further sum, not altogether in excess of $5,000, as punitive damages that you may find from the evidence to be reasonable and impose upon the defendant as a penalty. Before you can find punitive damages, however you must find that the degree of negligence was so gross and flagrant in its character as to evince a reckless disregard of human life or the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or that there was such an entire want of care which would raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation.'

The statute provides that:

'A railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to persons, stock or other property, by the running of the

...